You know deep inside that Queen + Lambert makes Queen look like a Joke...I do agree that Queen could go on without Freddie, The bands you mentioned and many many more legendary bands have kept going through lineup changes...the list is endless...Only a few bands called it quits after a member died or the original band broke up for whatever reason. The Beatles and Zeppelin did it....Not many more have...I personally don't like Lambert for Queen...Paul Rodger's wasn't a great fit either but at least he was a legend and songwriter in his own right....
[/QUOTE]
Without a doubt, Lambert is largely a marketing decision so that they can connect with the kids. He's not my first choice either. But "joke" may be a bit extreme. Are INXS, Journey and Yes a joke too with their recent decisions for singers? As far as I see it, these guys just want to keep their music and play because, well, it's what they do !
It's the sanctimonious "seeing anyone but Freddie sing Queen songs makes you disrespectful to Freddie" mentality that's nauseating, not the intelligent discussion over whether or not Lambert is worthy of Brian and Roger's (and our) time.
Holly2003 · Member since
Let's play a little game. It's true that bands can and do go on without original singers. Sometimes they even do a good job. But let's pretend Adam Lambert was the new singer for any of these bands who lost their original front man:
AC/DC
Judas Priest
Iron Maiden
The Doors
Van Halen
Black Sabbath
Pink Floyd
Led Zep (when JP was auditioning new singers in 2008).
So ... would any of that be appealing? Or would it make them a laughing stock?
A Word In Your Ear · Member since
[QUOTE] [b]Holly2003 wrote:[/b]
Let's play a little game. It's true that bands can and do go on without original singers. Sometimes they even do a good job. But let's pretend Adam Lambert was the new singer for any of these bands who lost their original front man:
AC/DC
Judas Priest
Iron Maiden
The Doors
Van Halen
Black Sabbath
Pink Floyd
Led Zep (when JP was auditioning new singers in 2008).
So ... would any of that be appealing? Or would it make them a laughing stock?
[/QUOTE]
Personally if was a big a fan of any of those bands mentioned as I am with Queen & the option was for none of them to ever play again, I would welcome "Adam Lambert" to take over the lead vocals.
Likewise, I would love to see Brian do a solo tour again, but that Ain't going to happen, so I welcome "Kerry Ellis" Besides if I am honest, 90% of the time my head is turned towards watching Brian play the Guitar anyway.
Same with the Lambert 2012 & Rodgers 2005 / 2008 collaborations, 90% of the time I was watching Brian & Roger.
Mike G · Member since
[QUOTE] [b]A Word In Your Ear wrote:[/b]
[QUOTE] [b]Holly2003 wrote:[/b]
Let's play a little game. It's true that bands can and do go on without original singers. Sometimes they even do a good job. But let's pretend Adam Lambert was the new singer for any of these bands who lost their original front man:
AC/DC
Judas Priest
Iron Maiden
The Doors
Van Halen
Black Sabbath
Pink Floyd
Led Zep (when JP was auditioning new singers in 2008).
So ... would any of that be appealing? Or would it make them a laughing stock?
[/QUOTE]
Personally if was a big a fan of any of those bands mentioned as I am with Queen & the option was for none of them to ever play again, I would welcome "Adam Lambert" to take over the lead vocals.
Likewise, I would love to see Brian do a solo tour again, but that Ain't going to happen, so I welcome "Kerry Ellis" Besides if I am honest, 90% of the time my head is turned towards watching Brian play the Guitar anyway.
Same with the Lambert 2012 & Rodgers 2005 / 2008 collaborations, 90% of the time I was watching Brian & Roger.
[/QUOTE]
Nothing against Rodgers, he has a good voice and I respect him, but The best part of the Queen + Rodger's tour I liked was Brian's "last horizon" and Roger's "let there be drums" I found paul boring as shrek.....
The Real Wizard · Member since
[QUOTE] [b]Holly2003 wrote:[/b]
Let's play a little game. It's true that bands can and do go on without original singers. Sometimes they even do a good job. But let's pretend Adam Lambert was the new singer for any of these bands who lost their original front man:
AC/DC
Judas Priest
Iron Maiden
The Doors
Van Halen
Black Sabbath
Pink Floyd
Led Zep (when JP was auditioning new singers in 2008).
So ... would any of that be appealing? Or would it make them a laughing stock?
[/QUOTE]
As much as I love these bands - how many of them had a flamboyance and theatricality to their music like Queen does?
I see what you're getting at, but most of those bands are straight ahead rock, and Queen didn't fit into that mold. It's comparing apples and oranges.
Not that I'm trying to justify their selection of Lambert. Perhaps they could have done better. But he is currently one of two people in 20 years who have managed to bring Brian and Roger back together to tour, so there must be something good about him.
john bodega · Member since
"Sabbath is Ozzy!"
That's a shit comparison though. Sabbath went on to have Dio singing for them. While the songwriting took a dive (as far as I'm concerned anyway) that's a hell of a promotion as far as raw singing ability goes. They went from having one big name to another. Anyone who wants to tell me Lambert is in the same tier as Freddie Mercury is probably on the same batch of DMT as Treasure Moment.
"Van Halen is Dave!"
I've grown up in perhaps a different era to a lot of rock music pundits so maybe I'm out of step here - but has anyone ever taken Van Halen seriously? To me, they're Kiss but with actual talent. Still only good for a laugh, though. And I do say that while bowing down to Eddie's playing ability. But comparing them to Queen diminishes the latter, I reckon.
"Floyd is Roger!"
Again, I see your point but it's totally not the same. Q+AL haven't gone on to record anything like High Hopes or Learning to Fly (I know they're not really 'Floyd' but they're good songs and I can't see Lambert reaching even that standard). If they were to do original music, one might just assume Brian and Roger will do the writing for him, but I can't see it. Paul Rodgers imposed a real walk-to-work attitude on the Cosmos Rocks album. From what I've heard of Lambert, I cringe to think about what he'd be bringing to any potential album.
"But "joke" may be a bit extreme. Are INXS, Journey and Yes a joke too with their recent decisions for singers? "
I can't comment on Journey and Yes because I haven't heard their choices - but INXS? Totally joke-worthy.
"As far as I see it, these guys just want to keep their music and play because, well, it's what they do !"
That's a philosophy I can get behind, for sure, but they've been playing with this guy on-and-off for about as long as they did with Paul Rodgers. It's getting stale. Each time they prepare for another big gig/tour/whatever, I do my best to empty my mind of the last one and think 'ok, this might be better'. And the Kiev/subsequent shows were an improvement. But it's still such a stylistic puke in the gutter that I'm really wondering where they're going to find any more room for improvement. It's getting cushy and lazy. Someone in another thread linked to Lambert doing "Whole Lotta Love" in his Idol days. Subtracting a few moments of irritating goat-vibrato, he was redlining it in that performance and it sounded pretty ace. My main problem with Rodgers (and now Lambert) is that they just don't sound like they give a shit.
"It's the sanctimonious "seeing anyone but Freddie sing Queen songs makes you disrespectful to Freddie" mentality that's nauseating"
I agree with that too. The Queen stuff isn't a sacred cow, and the legacy can't be ruined, because it's a pre-existing thing. The only place it's being tarnished is in the puny mind of anyone who can't separate the old stuff from the new stuff.
"But let's pretend Adam Lambert was the new singer for any of these bands who lost their original front man"
Exactly. I get acid reflux thinking of Lambert fronting Jones/Page/Bonzo Jr, as a hypothetical. And like I already said, he did a fine job of Whole Lotta Love - 5 years ago when he still felt like he had something to prove. Now he has all of the charm and interest of someone doing their best Miley Cyrus impersonation. Plus shit facial hair.
"But he is currently one of two people in 20 years who have managed to bring Brian and Roger back together to tour, so there must be something good about him"
My best guess is that the market research backs up their choice. It's a safe bet on a superficial level. To me it's no different than when we'd get people saying 'omg justin hawkins should play with Queen!' just because he threw in the odd bit of falsetto here and there.
I guess music needs to be labelled otherwise none of it would sell, but it's like … the labelling process is getting exponentially lazier and less accurate. We're at the point now where people can look at Lambert, who lacks the charisma, humour, subtlety, sublimeness, light and shade of a guy like Freddie Mercury - and can say 'yeah, he fits in great'. All because he's 'theatrical'?? It's nonsense, and extremely superficial.
someonewholikesadam · Member since
" Plus shit facial hair."
Zebonka, we Adam fans don't like that facial hair either. But please refer to it by its proper name. Melvin. Thank you.
john bodega · Member since
So long as at least one of you understand; I don't write this shit out of malice because the guy does sometimes get it right. I'm just not seeing the tight fit that Brian and Roger are talking about. Granted it might feel that way for them, which is the clincher when you're in a band, but on the receiving end of it I'm hearing too many 'WTF' moments.
Vocal harmony · Member since
[QUOTE] [b]Holly2003 wrote:[/b]
. But let's pretend Adam Lambert was the new singer for any of these bands who lost their original front man:
AC/DC
Judas Priest
Iron Maiden
The Doors
Van Halen
Black Sabbath
Pink Floyd
Led Zep (when JP was auditioning new singers in 2008).
[/QUOTE]
Interesting question and point. However turn this around slightly. Could any of these bands singers past or present fit into Queen? And sing a cross section of songs, not just pick a handful that suit each voice. If you look at it like that, the mountain that Queen+ have to climb becomes more apparent.
The King Of Rhye · Member since
heck, if you want to talk about a band having success after the departure of their original singer......how bout Genesis??
brENsKi · Member since
[QUOTE] [b]Vocal harmony wrote:[/b]
[QUOTE] [b]Holly2003 wrote:[/b]
. But let's pretend Adam Lambert was the new singer for any of these bands who lost their original front man:
AC/DC
Judas Priest
Iron Maiden
The Doors
Van Halen
Black Sabbath
Pink Floyd
Led Zep (when JP was auditioning new singers in 2008).
[/QUOTE]
Interesting question and point. However turn this around slightly. Could any of these bands singers past or present fit into Queen? And sing a cross section of songs, not just pick a handful that suit each voice. If you look at it like that, the mountain that Queen+ have to climb becomes more apparent.
[/QUOTE]
that's an unfair comparison. most singers would only fit in a handful of bands. But since you ask, I think both Dio and Plant would've handled most of queen's touring setlist from 73 -86 (note i didn't say ALL, i said most) - and that's a big plus when you consider the chopping/changing done to accommodate Rodgers' voice.
MySharona · Member since
The choice of Lambert makes perfect sense really. It's about what I would expect from a deaf drummer, and Brian's awfully distracted these days.
MySharona · Member since
[QUOTE] [b]The Real Wizard wrote:[/b]
He still accepts his cheques, so tone down the hero worship there, son.[/QUOTE]
And why shouldn't he. Seen in a certain light, it's his legacy they're steering into the ditch too. He should be compensated. Actually, whatever it is, they ought to double it. Adam Lambert, FFS.
The Real Wizard · Member since
[QUOTE] [b]Zebonka12 wrote:[/b]
We're at the point now where people can look at Lambert, who lacks the charisma, humour, subtlety, sublimeness, light and shade of a guy like Freddie Mercury - and can say 'yeah, he fits in great'. All because he's 'theatrical'?? It's nonsense, and extremely superficial. [/QUOTE]
But who in the world does have all those things? Hell, even just the light and shade? Pretty much everyone is a one trick pony.
Such a combination will never exist again. May and Taylor have said that it's impossible to replace the irreplaceable. They just want to work with someone they gel with. But of course to some extent this is clearly a marketing decision, as we all seem to agree upon. Maybe the tour will be an improvement. Maybe it'll be worse because 2/3 of the crowd will end up being Lambert fans. We'll see..
Great post.
john bodega · Member since
"But who in the world does have all those things? Hell, even just the light and shade? Pretty much everyone is a one trick pony"
Can't argue against that, but to my mind it's just curious that of all the singers extant, that they go with this one. And I hate being cynical about it because music is my happy place - an escape of sorts from real world practicalities - but man ... I dunno what else to think. Playing with Lambert is hardly the nadir of their collaborations (anyone remember Dappy?) but if this really is their last hurrah, they could do far better.
